Education
Services for Overseas Students Amendment (Re-registration of
Providers and Other Measures) Bill 2009

________________­­­______________

SCHEDULE OF THE AMENDMENTS
MADE BY THE SENATE TO WHICH THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES HAS
DISAGREED

(2) Schedule 2, page 16 (after line
11), after item 5, insert:

5A Paragraph
29(1)(a)

Omit “less”,
substitute “plus

(aa) the total of the prescribed amounts relating to expenses
incurred by the student in connection with the course;
less”.

5B
Subsection 29(2)

Omit
“paragraph (1)(b)”, substitute “paragraphs
(1)(aa) and (b)”.

(3) Schedule 2, page 16 (after line
16), after item 6, insert:

6A Section
46

After “course
money”, insert “and certain consequential
costs”.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
REASONS FOR DISAGREEING TO

THE SENATE AMENDMENTS

Senate
Amendments Number 2 and 3

Amendments 2 and 3 propose that the Minister be given the power to
define in regulations any consequential expenses that a defaulting
provider should pay back to a student in addition to course
money. This amendment is not supported because it is not
costed and contains no detail about what would be considered as a
certain consequential cost. It has the potential to exhaust
the capacity of the Assurance Fund and commit the Government to
significant taxpayer outlay for expenses not normally considered
education-related nor reimbursed to domestic students.
Examples of possible consequential costs include: international and
domestic travel; accommodation and food; education agent fees;
travel and medical insurance; and computers and internet costs.

The ESOS legislation already provides for a generous and
comprehensive consumer protection framework which for the main part
has worked very well in placing students in an alternative course
or refunding their fees in a timely way following provider
default. Australia is the only country that offers this level
of assurance. Furthermore, students affected by closures are
readily given an extension on their visa without restrictions on
working while they await alternative arrangements.

In the context of significant growth and change in the
international sector, the adequacy and sustainability of the
consumer protection model is currently being looked as part of the
ESOS Review and the Government considers that this amendment is
more appropriately referred to the Review. Accordingly, the
House of Representatives does not accept this amendment.